TakeYouToTasker

I suggest no such thing. That's you projecting. I judge people for their choices, which they are responsible for (creating a non-nuclear family is a choice). The fact that you would equate that with race, which individuals do not choose, is reprehensible. The fact that non-nuclear families consistently lead to worse results statistically does not magically disappear just because of your pearl clutching. It's a statistical reality that you cannot escape. Equality under the law does not magically confer equal results, as some choices will always lead to worse outcomes than others. Further, it should not come as a surprise to you that what is most biologically normal statistically leads to the best results.

Maybe I'm out of touch, but I actually give a damn about my kids using drugs; and as such I have a problem with people put forward as role models using them. To go a bit PPP here, my personal stance on legality is very libertarian. I don't think marajuana use should be a criminal offense, nor even a civil offense if used in private; but I do think it's use should be discriminated against by employers as appropriate, and I think amongst athletes that fits the bill. Like I said, that might make me a bit of a "square" but I'm more than OK with that.

I don't disagree with any of what you've said. With that said, I present a hypothetical: LeBron starts getting blasted on TMZ for pot use. Multiple times, multiple incidents. Maybe something shows up in a police blotter. What's the fallout? Edit: send me a PM so I have a reminder about the wager when I want to collect my hat after the new CBA!

I'll repeat: the reason MLB got crushed was because of pressure from parents who were their constituents. It's was a complete "think of the children" thing. They had their anti-trust exemption threatened. Again, perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am.

This will play out one of two ways, and one of us will be right. I'll wager a bills hat on it.

Parents of the people growing up idolizing NBA and NHL players aren't pressuring their congress people about the messaging their kids are getting. If they were, there would be movement.

Again, Congress did not care one iota about cheating in sports. What it cared about was the communication it was getting from it's constituents about the messaging their children were getting from professional athletes who were using illegal drugs with the league's tacit approval.

I strenuously believe it's because of their anti-trust exemption.

Similar to MLBs non-testing for PEDS which led to their crucifixion.

Many PEDs are far more helpful to athletes attempting to recover from injury than marajuana is. You can stand as far to the front of the new pro-drug use movement as you want; but that doesn't change the reality. A major sports league very recently had it's anti-trust exemption very publicly threatened for tacit approval of illegal drug use. The NFL would certainly expect the same for express approval. In fact, I would be stunned if they hadn't already received communication to those ends. As I said, there's a reason they haven't moved on the issue already.

Again, Congress had zero interest in cheating when they crucified MLB. None. They cared about the optics of a high profile professional sports league tacitly allowing drug use. That's all. Now consider the optics of an even more popular league expressly allowing illegal drug use. It's not anywhere near the table.

then don't clutch them.

You really believe this, in light of Congress crucifying MLB over it's loose stance on PEDs only a few years ago? Congress' interest had nothing to do with cheating in sports, it was the pressure individual Congressmen were getting from parents concerned with the message it was sending to their high school aged children about drug use. I'm not being dramatic at all. There is a reason the NFL hasn't sought to move on drug use, including marajuana.

As long as marajuana is illegal at the federal level, it isn't a bargaining chip. The NFL stands to lose anti-trust protection. Further, this would clearly be construed as a tacit approval of recreational drug use. This would cost the NFL far more endorsement dollars than the occasional player smacking his wife around, which ultimately gets dealt with appropriately anyway. Perhaps a better play would be to simply put social and legal pressure on the union to capitulate on wife beating.

This post is ignorant. That's because they're !@#$s looking for a reason to feel oppressed. Rice was protected from on high by the prince of darkness until the elevator tape emerged. The NFL protects the NFL. Brown is in the wind now, and will be treated the same as Rice.

One if a sectioned substance at the federal level. The other is a very grey area.

I know Jean is a woman, I was making a joke. As to my primary statement, it's borne our with data. The single factor that is most closely corolated with intergenerational poverty is the non-nuclear family. But by all means, let's predend that isn't true. Let's demonize people who point it out, and who believe strongly in the moral structures supported by the data. Let's pretend all family structures are equal in results, to protect feelings. Idiot.

The non-nuclear family is one of the worst possible starting places for children, though I suspect the two dads bit here is a typo.

No it absolutely does not. The Rice and Hardy incidents were very public, and their teams would have absolutely kept them on had that not been the case. Now that the Brown case has become very public, I'd expect the same for him. That barely rises to the level of a domestic incident, and no one was physically accosted. The guy was absolutely in the wrong, but that's not something that should get you black balled from employment.

Moves from the bottom of one depth chart to the bottom of another. Hopefully Woods won't miss enough time to make him relevant, and we can go back to discussing cutting him in a week or two.

I think we were talking about both, though my post that you quoted was about Kaep. The other thing about Kaep, he's not interested in calling attention to black murder rates. That would be laudable. He's interested in promoting a false SJW narrative.

Kaepernick?

The Constitution has a prescribed method for changing the Document, which is how the commerce clause, and all other clauses should be adapted to a changing world. Your preferred method is that of Clinton and Trump, because it expressly lends itself towards their ends. The role of the Court is to deem if legislation is Constitutional or not, not to judge if legislation is good or not. The Constitution is the high law of the land, and all legislation must be subservient to it. Scalia did not rule that the legislation wasn't constructive. He ruled that the Constitution did not permit it. At which point, it falls to Congress to amend the legislation in order that it meet Constitutional rigors, or that they amend the Constitution in order to permit the legislation. Did you really require this civics lesson this morning?

Like I said, it's a combination. I don't think Mario has ever been passionate about football, but when he was younger his immense natural ability was able to carry him to a near elite level without requiring drive. Now that he's aging, and his natural athletic ability is in decline, his lack of drive is showing itself.

There is absolutely zero difference between the two. What you advocate for is a self-restrained Court with the ability to legislate, putting your faith in lawyer rather than law. This always regresses to the power hungry rising to power to further their own ends.